Appeal No. Application No. 08/898,853
2004-1203
nomenclature as to whether one considers the third layer as part of the core or the cover” (main
brief, page 8). To support this position, the appellants have appended a number of evidentiary
items to the main brief, the most relevant of which is the uncontested 37 CFR § 1.132
Declaration of Larry C. Cadorniga which discusses the lack of any definitive standard in the
industry for designating intermediate layers of a solid golf ball as either core or cover layers.
In the main brief, the appellants point out how, if the disclosure of the inner cover
layer provides the requisite written descriptive support for the recitation in the claims of the
outer
core layer, the golf ball originally disclosed in the instant application would embody the Shore D
hardness characteristics recited in claim 13, the thicknesses (or diameters) recited in claim 15,
the
specific gravity relationships recited in claim 16 and the particular materials recited in claim 18.
The appellants’ analysis here is reasonable on its face and has not been disputed by the
examiner.
Thus, the dispositive issue in the appeal is whether the appellants’ original disclosure of the
inner
cover layer provides written descriptive support for the outer core layer recited in the claims.
Given the fair teachings of the original disclosure, the scope of the appealed claims and
the evidence before us, it matters not in this particular case whether the golf ball layer in
question
is designated as an inner cover layer as in the appellants’ original disclosure or an outer core
layer as in the appealed claims. On the record before us, and notwithstanding the noted
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007